Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-zv2rg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-12T02:28:44.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CLOSING OF THE MIND: HOW THE PARTICULAR QUANTIFIER BECAME EXISTENTIALLY LOADED BEHIND OUR BACKS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

GRAHAM PRIEST
GRAHAM PRIEST*
Affiliation:
Universities of Melbourne and St Andrews
*
*SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, VICTORIA 3010, AUSTRALIA. E-mail: g.priest@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper argues that the view that the particular quantifier is ‘existentially loaded’ is a relatively new one historically and that it has become entrenched in modern philosophical logic for less than happy reasons.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , June 2008 , pp. 42 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, J. (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. (1987). The Closing of the American Mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Buridan, J. (2001). Summulae de Dialectica (Klima, G., editor and translator). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1937). The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
De Rijk, L. M. (1982). The origins of the theory of the properties of terms. In Kretzmann, N., Kenny, A., Pinborg, J., and Stump, E., editors. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–173.Google Scholar
Fine, G. (1993). On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1980). Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1984). On Mr. Peano's conceptual notation and my own. In McGuinness, B., editor. Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 234–248.Google Scholar
Geach, P., & Black, M., editors and translators. (1970). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. (2007). Retreat from non-being. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84, 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. N. (1894). Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Kloesal, C. J. W., editor. (1993). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: Vol. 5, 1884-1886. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. (1979). The Trouble with Possible Worlds. In Loux, M. J., editor. The Possible and the Actual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, chapter 15.Google Scholar
Maierù, A. (1972). Terminologia Logica della Tarda Scolastica. Rome, Italy: Edizioni dell'Atenio.Google Scholar
Paul of Venice. (1978). Logica Magna: Secunda Pars (del Punta, F., editor, Adams, M. M., translator). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pears, D. F., editor. (1972). Russell's Logical Atomism. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2005). Towards Non-Being: The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1948). On what there is. Review of Metaphysics, 48, 21–38. Reprinted as chapter 1 of From a Logical Point of View. New York, NY: Harper Row, 1953.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493. Reprinted in Lackey, D., editor. Essays in Analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B., & Whitehead, A. N. (1927). Principia Mathematica, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Venn, J. (1894). Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar